The FAQ on Sunder ...

[Hypersmurf]

Do y'all think the designers changed the intent of Sunder, between the Player's Handbook and the Rules Compendium?

I think they're changing the rules of Sunder, between the Player's Handbook and the Rules Compendium.

What you rewrote the first time: "When you Sunder, you can use a melee attack."

What you rewrote the second time: "The action doesn't use a melee attack; you use a melee attack when you take the action."

That's right. And in neither case am I changing the meaning of the text.

There is an action called Sunder. Its description says: "SUNDER: You can use a melee attack..."

If I'm not taking the action called Sunder, the text found under the heading "SUNDER" is irrelevant. So "When you Sunder" already exists implicitly in every sentence under that heading.

Just as the rules found under the heading CHARGE only apply... when you Charge. If you're not Charging, you can ignore that section of the book entirely.

So when I Sunder, I can use a melee attack...

When I take the Sunder action, I use a melee attack...

You label both of these rewrites; I maintain that that's what the text already says.

Thus we conclude that Sunder is clearly written as an action which is used as an attack. According to the rules, this supersedes the table. It simple doesn't matter that the table incorrectly omitted this information.

The table didn't omit information; the table provided information that differs from what appears in the Rules Compendium preview.

If the RC preview, it is defined, as Grapple, Trip, and Disarm, as a variable-type action that replaces a melee attack derived from another source. In the Core rules, it is defined it the table as a standard action. Not an omission of information; a completely different concept.

You say "We conclude", but I don't share your conclusion. I see it clearly defined as an action, and written such that you use an attack when that action is taken. No supercession is necessary, since no contradiction exists.

-Hyp.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I notice you have neglected, in any way, to respond to or refute the core of the argument. Allow me to repeat it and give you another chance:

What do we notice here? Well, first we notice that every single "Special Attack" that doesn't take the place of an attack specifically states the type of action it requires: (examples snipped)

When a "Special Attack" takes the place of an attack we find: (examples snipped)

1. Sunder contains no statement of the type of action it requires.

2. Sunder contains the phrase "use a melee attack" -- which looks a lot like "as a melee attack", "in place of a melee attack", and "make a melee attack", but looks absolutely nothing like "using a standard action", "requires a standard action", or "as a standard action".

Thus we conclude that Sunder is clearly written as an action which is used as an attack. According to the rules, this supersedes the table. It simple doesn't matter that the table incorrectly omitted this information.

Do you have an actual response to this? Or are you just going to play more selective quoting games?

The table didn't omit information; the table provided information that differs from what appears in the Rules Compendium preview.

If the RC preview, it is defined, as Grapple, Trip, and Disarm, as a variable-type action that replaces a melee attack derived from another source. In the Core rules, it is defined it the table as a standard action. Not an omission of information; a completely different concept.

You say "We conclude", but I don't share your conclusion. I see it clearly defined as an action, and written such that you use an attack when that action is taken. No supercession is necessary, since no contradiction exists.

I can't help but notice that what you wrote:

(a) Had nothing to do with what you were responding to; and
(b) Failed to provide an actual response to the argument.

As a result, I am forced to draw one of three conclusions:

(1) You have no refutation and know that you are wrong.

(2) The only type of "discussion" you're capable of engaging in at this point is selective quoting and strawmanning.

(3) Both of the above.

That's very sad. I pity you.

But it also means there's little point in continuing this discussion: You've admitted that you're wrong by the FAQ and wrong by the forthcoming Rules Compendium. You've also made it clear you have no refutation for the fact that rules as written also contradict your interpretation.

The only thing you're apparently willing to argue is that Table 8-2 disagrees with those other sources. This may or may not be true, but it's completely irrelevant: Not only does the RAW supercede a contradictory table, errata clearly does so.

If you decide to actually provide a response to my argument, the discussion can continue. Otherwise you have nothing worthwhile left to say.

Have a nice day.

 

[Legildur]

I can't help but notice that what you wrote:

(a) Had nothing to do with what you were responding to; and
(b) Failed to provide an actual response to the argument.

As a result, I am forced to draw one of three conclusions:

(1) You have no refutation and know that you are wrong.

(2) The only type of "discussion" you're capable of engaging in at this point is selective quoting and strawmanning.

(3) Both of the above.

That's very sad. I pity you.

But it also means there's little point in continuing this discussion: You've admitted that you're wrong by the FAQ and wrong by the forthcoming Rules Compendium. You've also made it clear you have no refutation for the fact that rules as written also contradict your interpretation.

The only thing you're apparently willing to argue is that Table 8-2 disagrees with those other sources. This may or may not be true, but it's completely irrelevant: Not only does the RAW supercede a contradictory table, errata clearly does so.

If you decide to actually provide a response to my argument, the discussion can continue. Otherwise you have nothing worthwhile left to say.

Have a nice day.

Saying 'have a nice day' at the end of a post where you accuse someone of selective quoting, being 'very sad', and 'nothing worthwhile to say' is insulting and condescending.

If you'd bothered to read the earlier (extensive) threads on this subject (and many others), you'd realise that Hyp has a very high level of respect in this community for his 'rules fu'. There is a good reason that his post count is quite high. Sure, his arguments can be excrutiatingly precise, but his understanding of the rules is not in question.

The text for Sunder is ambiguous. The table is not. IF the RC comes out and changes that AND it is stated as errata, then well and good. Until then Sunder as a melee attack requires selective interpretation of the table to ignore the lack of 'action type varies' and the corresponding 'footnote 7'.

It was a Standard Action in 3.0e, and so it remains in 3.5e (for the moment).

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can't help but notice that what you wrote:

(a) Had nothing to do with what you were responding to...

I responded to "the table incorrectly omitted this information" with "The table did not omit information"; I can't really see how what I wrote had nothing to do with what I was responding to... apart from the fact that they were contradictory...?

That's very sad. I pity you.

Entirely your prerogative.

But it also means there's little point in continuing this discussion: You've admitted that you're wrong by the FAQ and wrong by the forthcoming Rules Compendium.

Not so at all. I agree that I disagree with the FAQ; I don't agree that this constitutes being wrong. And I disagree that what the forthcoming Rules Compendium says is the same as what the Core Rules say; once it's published, if the RC supercedes the Core Rules, my interpretation of Sunder will change to match the new rules. Until that time, the Rules Compendium has no bearing on the rules; after that time, while it may change the rules of Sunder, it won't change what they were.

The only thing you're apparently willing to argue is that Table 8-2 disagrees with those other sources. This may or may not be true, but it's completely irrelevant: Not only does the RAW supercede a contradictory table, errata clearly does so.

Table 8-2 disagrees with the FAQ. The FAQ is not RAW, and does not supercede the table found in the primary source.

Table 8-2 disagrees with the preview of the Rules Compendium. If the RC is errata, it will supercede the table when it is published, at which point the rules will change.

Until that time, nothing changes Table 8-2's definition of Sunder as a standard action.

-Hyp.

 

[blargney the second]

Well, sure, if you have a 1st-level wizard try and do it...

Not even... it was a hill giant!

 

[Fifth Element]

Until then Sunder as a melee attack requires selective interpretation of the table to ignore the lack of 'action type varies' and the corresponding 'footnote 7'.

No it doesn't. Melee attack is listed as a standard action, not as 'action type varies'. Sunder is a melee attack. It is therefore listed in the same way a melee attack is.

 

[Fifth Element]

If you'd bothered to read the earlier (extensive) threads on this subject (and many others), you'd realise that Hyp has a very high level of respect in this community for his 'rules fu'. There is a good reason that his post count is quite high. Sure, his arguments can be excrutiatingly precise, but his understanding of the rules is not in question.

This is also condescending.

It does appear that one reason Hyp's post count is so high is that he posts the same thing, over and over again, restating his opinion, regardless of what arguments may have been made against it.

Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. Even if someone is usually right, that doesn't mean he's automatically right in all cases.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No it doesn't. Melee attack is listed as a standard action, not as 'action type varies'.

Melee attack isn't listed as a standard action; the attack action (melee) is listed as a standard action (since it is one).

The attack action incorporates a single attack, as do several other actions. Like Sunder.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Melee attack isn't listed as a standard action; the attack action (melee) is listed as a standard action (since it is one).

The attack action incorporates a single attack, as do several other actions. Like Sunder.

This demonstrates the validity of my recent claim reasonably well. There goes that hair again.

Please someone, ban me from this thread. I don't want to post here anymore but I can't seem to help myself. Hyp's not listening, nor are his disciples; I'm not sure why I continue.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Please someone, ban me from this thread. I don't want to post here anymore but I can't seem to help myself. Hyp's not listening, nor are his disciples; I'm not sure why I continue.

Possibly because there's an odd fascination in watching someone, even goading someone into, refusing to admit there's even the possibility he's wrong, no matter the evidence against his position. It really is interesting. (C.f., The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.) The thought that I always have is, "I wonder how many times this person stuck his hand in an open flame as a child?"

Also, there's the possibility that you're a mild masochist. I know that plays into why I do it, just a little bit. (But the amusement/bemusement factor is much greater.)